Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

US Politics - A-level round-up

While Republicans have effectively divided into two warring
parties over the Obamacare repeal, Democrats have retained a strong
congressional unity, says the Washington Post’s Daily 202.

Key points:

1-Democrats have voted with consistent unanimity
in rejecting repeal proposals, even those up for re-election in Trump states
and districts

2-The House Democratic caucus has changed since
Obamacare’s passage in 2010. “Blue Dogs”
have been wiped out and the party’s base has moved left; of 34 Democrats who opposed
Obamacare in 2010, only 3 are still sitting in 2017 and they are all opposed to
GOP repeal attempts.

3-The Democrats are reacting to the so-called
Resistance movement’s pressure from outside the House; similar to Republicans
and the tea party at the beginning of Obama’s presidency

4-House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi acknowledges
it is easier to mobilise votes against something than for something and imposes
strict discipline on her caucus

5-In a Washington Post interview, also promoted in
the Daily 202, Pelosi noted the importance of keeping the Democrat tent a wide
one, incorporating pro-lifers as well as abortion rights activists.

Democrat Problems

“Commentary’s” Noah Rothman says the Democrats have been
learning the wrong lessons from their 2016 defeats:

1-Blaming Hillary Clinton and other external party
factors for their defeat, the Democrats have concluded that re-energising their
base is the way forward

2-The problem is that the Democrat base was
already energised in 2016 – but for Donald Trump

3-The so-called “Obama Coalition” seemed to show
that Democrats no longer needed their white working-class voters; 2016 showed
that Clinton could not keep the “Obama Coalition” in place – perhaps no other
Democrat can

4-Democrats are thus allowing a new and
radicalised base to drive them, whilst ignoring the original white
working-class base which used to win them elections

Hillary Clinton on defeat

Hillary Clinton has been speaking about her reaction to her defeat
in an interview with CNN’s Christine Amanpour.
Whilst accepting “personal responsibility” for the defeat, she also
cited other factors as being decisive – notably James Comey’s re-opening her
email case, the Wikileaks hack of John Podesta’s emails, and misogyny in
politics. Clinton’s campaign has also
been the subject of a “tell-all” book – “Shattered” – which is hostile to the
former Secretary of State’s failed candidacy against Donald Trump, suggesting
she was insular, secretive and isolated from disenchanted Democrat voters.

Race and Parties

Trump and the resurgence of race issues

President Donald Trump has reiterated his admiration for
President Andrew Jackson (the first real “Democrat” president), claiming that
had Jackson been president later the Civil War would not have happened, in an
interview with the Washington Examiner.

Salon writer Chauncey Devega sees this as further evidence
of Trump and the Republicans’ neo-Confederate racist leanings. His key take-aways:

2-They came to power in part by promoting a false
idea of white victimhood

3-Andrew Jackson, who carried out a campaign of
ethnic cleansing in the American west against Native Americans, is an
appropriate symbol for this movement

4-Neo-confederates promote a historical fiction
that the Civil War was not about slavery but states’ rights

5-It is no surprise that the KKK endorsed Donald
Trump

6-Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act gave birth to
the modern, white supremacist Republican Party.
It “transformed the party of Abraham Lincoln into the party of Jefferson
Davis”.

7-The Trump Administration’s treatment of
undocumented Latino immigrants is redolent of the hunting of fugitive slaves
before the civil war.

8-Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions continues
to be dogged by allegations of a racist past.

Historical note: The Washington Post noted that Democrat
House Leader Nancy Pelosi sat beneath a portrait of the first Republican president
Abraham Lincoln, while Trump espouses the virtues of the first Democratic
president Andrew Jackson.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The press are certainly able to make a lot of noise. Most of the country may not be that bothered about press regulation, but it has definitely become the NUMBER ONE ISSUE for the denizens of the media class. The Budget is almost looking like light relief tomorrow.

There are a few voices of sanity if you look hard enough. Amol Rajan in the Evening Standard yesterday commented on the dangers of victim justice, while Will Sturgeon on today's Media Blog provides a reminder of exactly why press regulation is on the agenda, and it's not to do with politicians trying to extend their power, funnily enough.

But there is also still plenty of group press hysterics to keep us all entertained, nowhere more obviously than in Quentin Letts' parliamentary 'sketch' in today's Mail. Letts is so focused on pouring vitriol over the heads of any MP who dared suggest that press regulation is needed that he quite forgot to be funny. Or maybe that's become his house style n…

There seems to be a popular liberal narrative emerging about the present state of British politics which is largely summed up by (1) the Tories have got us into a mess over the past couple of years and (2) they, especially Theresa May, should apologise for getting Britain into this mess.

Utter bilge.

There may be a number of things Mrs. May needs to apologise for - a poor campaign, an overly insular leadership style, the loss of a number of Conservative seats - but all these apologies need to be directed purely at the Tory party that she leads and its candidates. Further, an acknowledgement that she has learned lessons from the election and will seek to adapt her premiership to suit those would be helpful and politically adept. But an apology to the country? What a fruitless, pointless, unnecessary exercise that would be.

I presume the apology in question that liberal commentators have in mind would be along the lines of saying sorry for calling an election. Really? In a democra…

Clause One of the Labour Party's constitution commits it to maintaining a strong parliamentary party:

“[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.”

Given that Jeremy Corbyn is opposed by 95% of his own MPs (only 15 MPs voted for him in the 2015 ballot; he wasn't required, as the incumbent leader, to check out that support again in 2016), the first obvious division within Labour would appear to be that between those who want to maintain a strong parliamentary party (the MPs who opoosed Corbyn) and those who want to make it more a grassroots-run organisation (principally Corbyn supporting groups like Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy). This New Statesman editorial summarises and comments on the division.

The policy differences, of course, are severe. The leaking of Labour's election manifesto suggested serious opposition within the party to it. It has become a fundamentally binary struggl…